Lighthouse dipping lights

  • 627 Replies
  • 15937 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #270 on: March 03, 2021, 12:26:22 AM »
The drop is 8 inches per mile squared. Don't pretend it's nothing.
I didn't say it is actually nothing, just practically nothing.
I showed quite clearly how small and insignificant that drop is for a direct measurement.

You showed a complete and utter con job by changing the reality of vision.
You certainly don't stand on Earth like you are portraying it.




Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #271 on: March 03, 2021, 01:17:31 AM »
The drop is 8 inches per mile squared. Don't pretend it's nothing.
I didn't say it is actually nothing, just practically nothing.
I showed quite clearly how small and insignificant that drop is for a direct measurement.

You showed a complete and utter con job by changing the reality of vision.
You certainly don't stand on Earth like you are portraying it.
Just where was the con?
Did I lie about the numbers?
Or do you think it is a con job to show just how small it is.
Right now I'm sitting not standing, but it certainly is on a RE, not the flat fantasy you cling to.

Again, care to explain why plumb towers shouldn't tilt away from each other on a RE, given the fact you have already admitted levels tilts away on a RE?

If not, care to explain what magic hides the lightouse?

*

Stash

  • 7308
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #272 on: March 03, 2021, 02:11:46 AM »


I mean, at least I have documentation and the completed project, all of which exist in the physical world, as evidence/proof of how the project was designed and constructed. What more do you want? You can actually ride on/in the completed project.

So yeah, here we are: If anything doesn't fit your belief system, without evidence, you just say someone is lying or something is fake. Again, why do you even bother responding to anyone if your sole argument is that?

Don't you also have documentation about men on the moon and probes passing by pluto and billions of miles into space and what not?

No, I don't have that documentation. But how would that even be remotely relevant? What do the Apollo missions and some Pluto bound probe have to do with a London Tube expansion project? Strawman much? I mean you can literally ride in the completed Crossrail project. It literally exists, right there in London. No rocket, moon or pluto required.

You're sitting there on your arse and you are reliant on stories that you accept as truth in every way shape and form. That's fair enough but don't go and try to tell me that you know this as fact, because you don't. You accept it as fact.

Why wouldn't it be the truth? What evidence do you have that it's a "story"? Why would subway engineers lie about how they planned, designed, and constructed a subway? What's to be gained by anyone? They publish a ton of documentation, maps, plans, architecture, routes, schedules, budgets, etc., the output of which is The London Survey Grid that then goes to all the Tunnel Boring engineers and everyone else involved in the project saying, "follow this plan". So they just passed off a fake set of plans and somehow the project got successfully completed?

The only reason why you believe it's not factual is because of your belief system. So without any evidence, you straight up claim the engineers are lying. That the whole Crossrail project is a lie. You think they created The London Survey Grid just to drive flat earthers like you nuts? Yet there it is - The truth, the proof, is that it was successfully constructed based upon globe earth parameters and you can literally ride the proof.

You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system. That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #273 on: March 03, 2021, 03:59:47 AM »
You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?
And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
You could also ask me if I think sub commanders are lying. You could also ask me if airline pilots are lying. You could also ask me if ship's captains are lying.

I can equally ask you how you know they're not or whether they're just following what they think is a plan of action.

You can sit there and stamp your feet and tell me you know for a fact. The truth is, you don't. Your reliance is on stories told. It's as simple as that.


Quote from: Stash

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system.
If a global mindset is said to be used, then yes, I do believe it's a lie.

Quote from: Stash

 That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?
No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm. It does not curve downwards on large bodies of it.
The religion is all down to you because the globe is like a massive religion.

 
Quote from: Stash

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.
No you don't. You rely on whatever you get told, as long as it comes from what you believe to be, authority.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2573
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #274 on: March 03, 2021, 06:17:46 AM »

That is already very simplified.  What do you have such trouble understanding?  spacetime or curvature?  There is only so far I can dumb it down for someone.
Seeing how the words, spacetime curvature go together, how about you explain them as just that.
If you struggle with that then you can explain spacetime and then the curvature of this space time.

Over to you.
No struggle here, I understand basic concepts pretty well, I also know when you  are playing dumb, well you always do that.  Again what part of the concept do you need help with.  Understand that I'm not gonna get out in the weeds playing semantic games with you.  You have already discussed these topics before.
I'll take that as you not knowing but following it because it's just easier to do.
It's weak but it is what it is and I accept it.
I understand it just fine, and so do you.  I know what you are doing, you know what you are doing, it's silly and unproductive.  Like I said you have discussed these topics before.  Tell you what, when you finish dodging Jack and answer him, I will give you a definition that even you could follow, I might even do it in crayon for you.
Get your crayons out and show me. I ask for the simplest form of explanation, so let's see it.
Your attempts at ridicule are so mild they're almost pleasant.
I welcome the child like explanations.
Still waiting for you to accomplish your task. 
Here is a sample then...  Spacetime is the structure of the universe.  Curvature is a warping away from a direct vector, stretching  or compressing away from a equilibrium state.  Mass affects spacetime, spacetime is where matter exists,, matter has mass.  More matter more mass, more mass concentrated in spacetime, more affect or curvature of spacetime.  Now go do your chores.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #275 on: March 03, 2021, 08:17:15 AM »

Still waiting for you to accomplish your task. 
Here is a sample then...  Spacetime is the structure of the universe.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.

Quote from: Mikey T
  Curvature is a warping away from a direct vector, stretching  or compressing away from a equilibrium state.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.


Quote from: Mikey T
Mass affects spacetime, spacetime is where matter exists,, matter has mass.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.


Quote from: Mikey T
  More matter more mass, more mass concentrated in spacetime, more affect or curvature of spacetime.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.


Quote from: Mikey T
  Now go do your chores.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.

*

Stash

  • 7308
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #276 on: March 03, 2021, 10:27:13 AM »
You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?

And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
You could also ask me if I think sub commanders are lying. You could also ask me if airline pilots are lying. You could also ask me if ship's captains are lying.

I can equally ask you how you know they're not or whether they're just following what they think is a plan of action.

You can sit there and stamp your feet and tell me you know for a fact. The truth is, you don't. Your reliance is on stories told. It's as simple as that.

Actually, it's not reliance on stories. There's no feet stomping, just evidence. It's reliance on the plans created from the The London Survey Grid that were used to construct the Crossrail expansion. You know what plans are, right? They are exceedingly necessary for every aspect of the construction. Here are some plans used in the Crossrail project:





Notice the inset on the plans:



2. Coordinates to the London Survey Grid, heights to the London height datum which is 100 metres below Ordnance
    Datum Newlyn. See Crossrail standard CR-STD-010, version 2
3. All dimensions are in millimetres unless specified otherwise.


You see the actual plans, and there are hundreds, refer to the London Survey Grid. And the London Survey Grid, as seen in other documentation, is based upon the WGS-84 Spheroid Transverse Mercator Projection, aka, globe earth.

The craziest bit is #3. Millimeters? That's some insane tolerances they were working with.

So what you're saying is that all of the plans are fake?

Quote from: Stash

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system.
If a global mindset is said to be used, then yes, I do believe it's a lie.

Well, it was created with a global mindset. So according to you, your argument is that it is all simply a lie. Even though the Crossrail project was engineered, planned, and constructed using a global mindset and it functions as advertised, and you can actually witness its functionality yourself by safely riding it, they somehow got it right, even though all of the engineering and planning used by all of the construction folks was a lie?

You realize that is a straight-up denial of observable reality, an observable reality that you can actually observe yourself, no rockets required. Does that really make sense to you, your denial of a reality you too can experience?

Quote from: Stash

 That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?
No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm. It does not curve downwards on large bodies of it.
The religion is all down to you because the globe is like a massive religion.

Actually yours is a religion because you are denying cold hard evidence and observable reality based solely on the faith you have in your belief system. You have no facts, evidence, or otherwise. Just your faith. That's referred to as a religion.

 
Quote from: Stash

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.
No you don't. You rely on whatever you get told, as long as it comes from what you believe to be, authority.

Nope, see the plans, the documentation. You know, the things necessary to build a 21 billion dollar subway expansion under a major metropolitan city.

You rely solely on what you tell yourself without evidence, i.e., faith-based.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #277 on: March 03, 2021, 01:30:13 PM »
I understand it just fine, and so do you.  I know what you are doing, you know what you are doing, it's silly and unproductive.  Like I said you have discussed these topics before.  Tell you what, when you finish dodging Jack and answer him, I will give you a definition that even you could follow, I might even do it in crayon for you.
Get your crayons out and show me. I ask for the simplest form of explanation, so let's see it.
Your attempts at ridicule are so mild they're almost pleasant.
I welcome the child like explanations.
Still waiting for you to accomplish your task. 
Here is a sample then...  Spacetime is the structure of the universe.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.
He clearly gave you conditions for that. You have not fulfilled those conditions so he isn't playing your game.

You need to stop dodging and answer me.
Exactly which questions I'm not sure about.

What is the one directly above it where I asked you just what the conjob was?
How my providing simple math to show how insignificant the 8 inches per mile squared is is somehow a conjob because it shows you are wrong?

Or was it the earlier one about plumb and level, and how even you have admitted that on a globe level (and thus plumb) will "tilt", such that level in 2 locations on Earth are not aligned and that means that 2 vertical, plumb towers, at different locations on Earth, will "tilt" away from each other and thus the tops will be further apart than their base, even though they are plumb, which makes perfect sense and follows quite simply and clearly using very simple logic, and goes directly against your attempt to pretend the RE is wrong by falsely claiming that the RE would require the towers to magically point towards each other in the middle. And how I asked just what doesn't make sense for the globe?

Or the earlier one, directly related to the topic of the OP, of just what magic results in the lighthouse magically being invisible on a RE, regardless of distance and height, in direct contrast to what plain and simple logic clearly shows where the ability to see a distant object is dependent on your distance to the object, the height of the object and your eye-height? Where instead of addressing the issue you instead continually appealed to a level sight with a FOV of 0?

And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
So you think they are just lying and pretending?

Because so far all that has been provided clearly shows they are using a global mindset.
The only way to claim otherwise is to claim that is all just being faked, that they are blatantly lying about what they are doing.

No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm.
No it doesn't.
It sounds like an outright lie.
Again, so far all you have for that is that you can't detect the curve in a sink.
But a sink is far too small to detect the curve because you simply do not have tools accurate enough to detect that completely insignificant curve.

You need to go to much larger distances, like looking at an object over a lake, where the water obstructs the view to the bottom, clearly showing the water is curved.

So no, what you are spouting does not sound like clear logic at all.

If you want it in the actual "logical" form:
Quote
The RE predicts the curvature over this tiny region should be insignificant and immeasurable without extremely precise tools.
I can't measure any curvature over this tiny region.
Therefore there is no curve.

In reality, your conclusion should be "This observation is consistent with a RE, with curvature which is too small to detect over this tiny region".

And the other part related to that:
Quote
I am standing in one location entirely above water level.
I am looking towards a distant object, also entirely above water level.
I can see the top of the object.
I can compare this view with a view of the object from much closer, which shows the bottom should clearly be resolved and from this position appears to be significant below the horizon, below water level.
But I know Earth and thus water level must be flat and thus it must be some other convoluted BS which results in the bottom magically being obscured and what is visible magically appearing lower.
That "conclusion" quite clearly isn't logic. It is religion, where you have already have your conclusions and invent whatever BS you need to try to prop it up.
The actual conclusion, based upon actual logic, is that the water clearly curves to obstruct the view to the bottom of the object.

So no, simple logic clearly shows that level water curves, that this curvature is insignificant over a short distance and thus cannot easily be measured in a sink; but over a long enough distance the curvature is so great that it obstructs the view to the bottom of objects and makes them appear lower as if they have sunk into the water.

So no, it sounds clearly like religion, not clear logic.

If you wish to disagree, feel free to "correct" the actual logical conclusion, making sure you take note that in a sink, the absence of you being able to measure curvature in your sink is entirely consistent with the negligible curvature expected for a RE, and that over very large distances, objects appear to sink below the horizon, with the water appearing to obscure the view to the bottom, even though both the observer and object are above water level.
If you need to ignore that, then what you are doing is religion, not logic.

*

Mikey T.

  • 2573
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #278 on: March 03, 2021, 08:26:10 PM »
Still waiting for Scepti to be a good little boy and do the task.  I even gave in a little but you just refuse.  I understand what you are failing at attempting to do scepti, Dr Feynman described the neverending nature of the why/how line of questioning.
Now, respond in an adequate manner to the questions Jack has posed about your assertions or no more crayons for you. 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #279 on: March 04, 2021, 01:48:43 AM »
You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?

And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
You could also ask me if I think sub commanders are lying. You could also ask me if airline pilots are lying. You could also ask me if ship's captains are lying.

I can equally ask you how you know they're not or whether they're just following what they think is a plan of action.

You can sit there and stamp your feet and tell me you know for a fact. The truth is, you don't. Your reliance is on stories told. It's as simple as that.

Actually, it's not reliance on stories. There's no feet stomping, just evidence. It's reliance on the plans created from the The London Survey Grid that were used to construct the Crossrail expansion. You know what plans are, right? They are exceedingly necessary for every aspect of the construction. Here are some plans used in the Crossrail project:





Notice the inset on the plans:



2. Coordinates to the London Survey Grid, heights to the London height datum which is 100 metres below Ordnance
    Datum Newlyn. See Crossrail standard CR-STD-010, version 2
3. All dimensions are in millimetres unless specified otherwise.


You see the actual plans, and there are hundreds, refer to the London Survey Grid. And the London Survey Grid, as seen in other documentation, is based upon the WGS-84 Spheroid Transverse Mercator Projection, aka, globe earth.

The craziest bit is #3. Millimeters? That's some insane tolerances they were working with.

So what you're saying is that all of the plans are fake?

Quote from: Stash

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system.
If a global mindset is said to be used, then yes, I do believe it's a lie.

Well, it was created with a global mindset. So according to you, your argument is that it is all simply a lie. Even though the Crossrail project was engineered, planned, and constructed using a global mindset and it functions as advertised, and you can actually witness its functionality yourself by safely riding it, they somehow got it right, even though all of the engineering and planning used by all of the construction folks was a lie?

You realize that is a straight-up denial of observable reality, an observable reality that you can actually observe yourself, no rockets required. Does that really make sense to you, your denial of a reality you too can experience?

Quote from: Stash

 That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?
No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm. It does not curve downwards on large bodies of it.
The religion is all down to you because the globe is like a massive religion.

Actually yours is a religion because you are denying cold hard evidence and observable reality based solely on the faith you have in your belief system. You have no facts, evidence, or otherwise. Just your faith. That's referred to as a religion.

 
Quote from: Stash

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.
No you don't. You rely on whatever you get told, as long as it comes from what you believe to be, authority.

Nope, see the plans, the documentation. You know, the things necessary to build a 21 billion dollar subway expansion under a major metropolitan city.

You rely solely on what you tell yourself without evidence, i.e., faith-based.
If you want to believe they take into account a curvature of a globe, then go right ahead.
I am under no illusions about your mindset and your mindset is firmly on a spinning globe. That's down to you to go on in life with and maybe expire with that thought.
Not a cat in hells chance will you ever get me conforming to your global model by using stuff like this.
You might as well tell me molten dinosaurs prove you have a super hot iron core in the centre of your Earth.

Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

Your mind would be better suited to questioning this stuff.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #280 on: March 04, 2021, 01:52:31 AM »


You need to stop dodging and answer me.

When you stop twisting stuff and ask specifics instead of just throwing out copy and paste, time after time after time, I'll consider re-engaging with you.
You spend too much time wanting a fight. Wanting to argue. Trying to intimidate and insult then claim to be the victim of it.


Clear out your mind and get with it.
If you carry on posting the stuff I've just edited, go ahead but you will receive little in response.

Your choice Mr nasty twister.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #281 on: March 04, 2021, 01:57:25 AM »
Still waiting for Scepti to be a good little boy and do the task.  I even gave in a little but you just refuse.  I understand what you are failing at attempting to do scepti, Dr Feynman described the neverending nature of the why/how line of questioning.
Now, respond in an adequate manner to the questions Jack has posed about your assertions or no more crayons for you.
Playing the tag team and attempted ridicule card will do you no favours and only strengthens my hand.
Feel free to do whatever you think you can achieve by holding each others internet hands like playground bullies but you gain nothing.


Did you decide to come in because you didn't think the posse was big enough?

If you want to engage then let's see what you have. In crayons if you have them.

Or just spend your time trying to play the ridicule card and giving yourself a round of applause.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #282 on: March 04, 2021, 01:59:35 AM »
You need to stop dodging and answer me.
When you stop twisting stuff and ask specifics instead of just throwing out copy and paste, time after time after time
I have asked specifics and you just keep ignoring them because you can't answer.
Like the specific case of 2 of your magnets, with the attractive vortexes alligned which should be repelling to match reality but your model indicates they should attract one another.

But instead of addressing that, you dodge and instead want to focus on the repulsive vortexes to pretend that it works fine.

Likewise, the specifics of why towers can't be plumb yet still tilt away from each other on a RE, when plumb lines tilt.

Likewise, the specifics of what obscured the lighthouse on a RE, regardless of height and distance (so it can't be the curvature), without ignoring the FOV.

You seem to have no interest at all on engaging with the specifics when you can't answer them and instead just deflect with whatever nonsense you can.


You spend too much time wanting a fight. Wanting to argue. Trying to intimidate and insult then claim to be the victim of it.
That would be, such as with yet another insult and dodge.
I spend too much time caring about the truth and explaining why you are wrong.
Grow up, stop with the insults and dodging and start with the explanations.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #283 on: March 04, 2021, 02:01:55 AM »
You need to stop dodging and answer me.
When you stop twisting stuff and ask specifics instead of just throwing out copy and paste, time after time after time
I have asked specifics and you just keep ignoring them because you can't answer.

If that's your stance then cease posting anything to me. I'm happy to overlook you because this just becomes tedious.

Either put some effort in and deal with one thing and accept that I do answer, or go and find something else to occupy your time.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #284 on: March 04, 2021, 03:03:48 AM »
If that's your stance then cease posting anything to me.
I will stop posting to you when you either address the issues or stop spouting the same refuted BS.

I have put in plenty of effort clearly explaining why you are wrong, even being nice and producing diagrams.
Meanwhile you just competley ignore/dismiss it all and repeat the same pathetic lies.

It is YOUR TURN to put in effort.

Now again, can you explain why the light house is not visible simply because Earth is curved completely independent of the height of the observer and the distance to the light house, in direct contrast to what is expected from simple logic including the diagrams I have provided?

Can you explain how the simple math I provided showing just how insignificant those 8 inches per mile squared is is a conjob?

Can you explain why towers on the RE should magically point towards each other? And why the explanations I have provided you with are nonsense?
Why 2 plumb towers shouldn't be pointing away from each other merely due to the RE and instead why they should need to magically be tilted away from plumb to tilt away from one another, yet again in direct defiance of simple logic and the diagrams provided?

Can you put in any effort at all, or can you just repeatedly dodge?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #285 on: March 04, 2021, 03:51:02 AM »

I will stop posting to you when you either address the issues or stop spouting the same refuted BS.
I will start answering you when you stop with your tantrums and frenzy and massive copy and paste mission.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #286 on: March 04, 2021, 04:57:33 AM »
Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

You still can't understand the simple model of gravity on a round Earth, can you?  How can you honestly argue against a theory you don't even have the slightest comprehension of?

It's very simple... it makes no sense to you not because it is wrong, but because it's your failure to understand it.  It works for the rest of us.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #287 on: March 04, 2021, 08:00:20 AM »
Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

You still can't understand the simple model of gravity on a round Earth, can you?  How can you honestly argue against a theory you don't even have the slightest comprehension of?

It's very simple... it makes no sense to you not because it is wrong, but because it's your failure to understand it.  It works for the rest of us.
You can't even understand your own fictional gravity. You're basically describing magical unicorns, so don't be giving it the old " you can't understand gravity" nonsense.



You read the story of fiction and you bought the book thinking it was fact, for which you know there is no proof.


The only way your globe can work is by using magical mysteries such as gravity and what not.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #288 on: March 04, 2021, 08:10:31 AM »
Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

You still can't understand the simple model of gravity on a round Earth, can you?  How can you honestly argue against a theory you don't even have the slightest comprehension of?

It's very simple... it makes no sense to you not because it is wrong, but because it's your failure to understand it.  It works for the rest of us.
You can't even understand your own fictional gravity. You're basically describing magical unicorns, so don't be giving it the old " you can't understand gravity" nonsense.

You read the story of fiction and you bought the book thinking it was fact, for which you know there is no proof.

The only way your globe can work is by using magical mysteries such as gravity and what not.

I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #289 on: March 04, 2021, 10:08:37 AM »


I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.
When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
Keep tugging on the skirts of so called scientists.

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #290 on: March 04, 2021, 10:12:00 AM »


I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.
When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
Keep tugging on the skirts of so called scientists.

It's not even about what either of us believe.  You don't have to believe something to understand it. 

It's all about you not being able to UNDERSTAND how gravity is explained to work. 

All you are doing here is just demonstrating your ignorance of the basic theory, and claiming it can't be right because you can't fathom it.

It's not a problem with the science. It's a problem with the limits of your ability to understand and imagine.


*

Stash

  • 7308
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #291 on: March 04, 2021, 11:13:13 AM »
You see, the way it works is that you can't just say they are lying. You need to provide evidence they are lying. How do you reconcile that?

And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
You could also ask me if I think sub commanders are lying. You could also ask me if airline pilots are lying. You could also ask me if ship's captains are lying.

I can equally ask you how you know they're not or whether they're just following what they think is a plan of action.

You can sit there and stamp your feet and tell me you know for a fact. The truth is, you don't. Your reliance is on stories told. It's as simple as that.

Actually, it's not reliance on stories. There's no feet stomping, just evidence. It's reliance on the plans created from the The London Survey Grid that were used to construct the Crossrail expansion. You know what plans are, right? They are exceedingly necessary for every aspect of the construction. Here are some plans used in the Crossrail project:





Notice the inset on the plans:



2. Coordinates to the London Survey Grid, heights to the London height datum which is 100 metres below Ordnance
    Datum Newlyn. See Crossrail standard CR-STD-010, version 2
3. All dimensions are in millimetres unless specified otherwise.


You see the actual plans, and there are hundreds, refer to the London Survey Grid. And the London Survey Grid, as seen in other documentation, is based upon the WGS-84 Spheroid Transverse Mercator Projection, aka, globe earth.

The craziest bit is #3. Millimeters? That's some insane tolerances they were working with.

So what you're saying is that all of the plans are fake?

Quote from: Stash

So at the end of the day your argument is that the London Survey Grid and everything that came forth from it resulting in the completed Crossrail expansion project is a lie because it doesn't fit your belief system.
If a global mindset is said to be used, then yes, I do believe it's a lie.

Well, it was created with a global mindset. So according to you, your argument is that it is all simply a lie. Even though the Crossrail project was engineered, planned, and constructed using a global mindset and it functions as advertised, and you can actually witness its functionality yourself by safely riding it, they somehow got it right, even though all of the engineering and planning used by all of the construction folks was a lie?

You realize that is a straight-up denial of observable reality, an observable reality that you can actually observe yourself, no rockets required. Does that really make sense to you, your denial of a reality you too can experience?

Quote from: Stash

 That sounds an awful lot like a religion more than anything else. Certainly not science. So that's what you have to offer up? Just your undying faith in your FE religion?
No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm. It does not curve downwards on large bodies of it.
The religion is all down to you because the globe is like a massive religion.

Actually yours is a religion because you are denying cold hard evidence and observable reality based solely on the faith you have in your belief system. You have no facts, evidence, or otherwise. Just your faith. That's referred to as a religion.

 
Quote from: Stash

I rely on evidence, you apparently rely solely on faith.
No you don't. You rely on whatever you get told, as long as it comes from what you believe to be, authority.

Nope, see the plans, the documentation. You know, the things necessary to build a 21 billion dollar subway expansion under a major metropolitan city.

You rely solely on what you tell yourself without evidence, i.e., faith-based.

If you want to believe they take into account a curvature of a globe, then go right ahead.

It's not about what I believe. It's about facts and evidence. All of the documentation, site/construction plans, etc., for every aspect of the engineering and building of the Crossrail project reference a globe. So you can say they are lying, but you're just saying that because of YOUR belief system, no facts or evidence. That is referred to as "blind faith".

I am under no illusions about your mindset and your mindset is firmly on a spinning globe. That's down to you to go on in life with and maybe expire with that thought.
Not a cat in hells chance will you ever get me conforming to your global model by using stuff like this.
You might as well tell me molten dinosaurs prove you have a super hot iron core in the centre of your Earth.

Oh, you misunderstand. No one is trying or even thinks you would ever alter your belief system. All that's being done is showing that you are wrong with facts and evidence. All you present is your belief, no facts, no evidence. Which is plain for everyone to see.

Why would anyone take into account of a curved Earth of the size you mention?
They would just dig under it in a straight line or whatever. No need to take in anything of a curve, unless they decided to curve downwards.

Your mind would be better suited to questioning this stuff.

I'm not following. You think putting in a massive subway expansion system with km's of tunnels underneath London where there's a couple 100 years worth of crowded infrastructure already there is just a matter of sticking a shovel in the ground and digging a straight line wherever you want to go? Just that new Crossrail stretch of long running tunnels from Liverpool St to Shenfield alone is like 32 KM. You think you can just bore in a straight line for 32 KM without any plans?

The darker lines are for the Crossrail project. The lighter shaded stuff is all of the Tube that was already there (Not to mention all of the other underground infrastructure, e.g., sewer, electrical, communications, etc.):



Yeah, skepti says, "...just dig under it in a straight line or whatever." Sure, just whatever... You have literally no idea what you are talking about.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #292 on: March 04, 2021, 12:12:35 PM »
I will start answering you when you stop with your tantrums and frenzy and massive copy and paste mission.
The problem is anytime I bring anything I have already asked you and you have refused to answer you will just dismiss it as a copy and paste mission.
It truly is pathetic.
Why not just admit you will not answer when you know the answers show you are wrong?

Like I said, I will stop repeating the same questions when you start answering them.

Have you thought of answers yet? Or do you still need to keep on dodging however you can?

When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
When you keep needing to just claim it is silly or ignorant or indoctrinated or the like, it just shows how pathetic your position is.
Why don't you stop with the ridicule and try to actually find a fault with it?
And by "fault" I don't mean a blatant misrepresentation of what is expected on a RE, but an actual fault with the RE model.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #293 on: March 05, 2021, 12:46:01 AM »


I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.
When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
Keep tugging on the skirts of so called scientists.

It's not even about what either of us believe.  You don't have to believe something to understand it. 

It's all about you not being able to UNDERSTAND how gravity is explained to work. 

All you are doing here is just demonstrating your ignorance of the basic theory, and claiming it can't be right because you can't fathom it.

It's not a problem with the science. It's a problem with the limits of your ability to understand and imagine.
You don't know how gravity works and you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
So don't try and tell me I don't understand.
It's you that doesn't understand, except to go along with gobbledygook.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #294 on: March 05, 2021, 12:50:23 AM »
I'm not following. You think putting in a massive subway expansion system with km's of tunnels underneath London where there's a couple 100 years worth of crowded infrastructure already there is just a matter of sticking a shovel in the ground and digging a straight line wherever you want to go? Just that new Crossrail stretch of long running tunnels from Liverpool St to Shenfield alone is like 32 KM. You think you can just bore in a straight line for 32 KM without any plans?

The darker lines are for the Crossrail project. The lighter shaded stuff is all of the Tube that was already there (Not to mention all of the other underground infrastructure, e.g., sewer, electrical, communications, etc.):



Yeah, skepti says, "...just dig under it in a straight line or whatever." Sure, just whatever... You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
You need to pay more attention.

I have no issue with avoiding obstacles and I've alrteady mentioned about digging down and such.
My argument is in you saying they're using the curve of the Earth to do what they do in avoiding stuff.

You know this because you read something and accept it as the truth.
You have no clue, so why don't you admit it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #295 on: March 05, 2021, 12:52:47 AM »
I will start answering you when you stop with your tantrums and frenzy and massive copy and paste mission.
The problem is anytime I bring anything I have already asked you and you have refused to answer you will just dismiss it as a copy and paste mission.

That's what you consistently do.
You saturate everything with copy and paste and I end up trying to read a plethora of stuff you've cherry picked for copy/paste.
Keep it simple and keep it to a point at a time and stop going off on a tangent. If you can do that I'll re-engage.

Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #296 on: March 05, 2021, 03:33:31 AM »
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.

I will start answering you when you stop with your tantrums and frenzy and massive copy and paste mission.
The problem is anytime I bring anything I have already asked you and you have refused to answer you will just dismiss it as a copy and paste mission.
That's what you consistently do.
No, I rarely copy and paste.

But again, the reason I consistently do this, is because you consistently refuse to address these issues.
If you addressed them when they were first brought up, I wouldn't need to consistently bring them up.

Keep it simple and keep it to a point at a time and stop going off on a tangent. If you can do that I'll re-engage.
Stop repeating the same pathetic lie.
I have tried that with you several times, and YOU run off onto a tangent because YOU can't explain your nonsense.
You are the problem here, not me.
If YOU want to try a single topic at a time, then pick that topic and stick to it, and make it one of the issues you are continually dodging.

Now again, can you explain why the RE should magically result in the lighthouse being invisible, regardless of height or distance?
Can you explain why on a RE plumb towers shouldn't be tilting away from each other?
Can you explain why the math I provided, clearly showing how insignificant the 8 inches per mile squared is over a short distance is somehow a con-job?

*

JJA

  • 4202
  • Math is math!
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #297 on: March 05, 2021, 03:37:55 AM »


I understand it just fine.  You saying ridiculous things like "if they built the track curved it would be going uphill!" shows you do not understand round earth theory, and are in no position to call it nonsense.

Your posts show your ignorance of the basic idea of gravity, and if you can't understand that then no wonder you are utterly confused about everything else.

It's only magical unicorns to you because you can't grasp the idea.
When you believe we live on a spinning oblate spheroid just wobbling about around a big near 1000,000 mile diameter sun and believe you're seeing over curves, then you really shouldn't be trying the silly ignorance bit.
Keep tugging on the skirts of so called scientists.

It's not even about what either of us believe.  You don't have to believe something to understand it. 

It's all about you not being able to UNDERSTAND how gravity is explained to work. 

All you are doing here is just demonstrating your ignorance of the basic theory, and claiming it can't be right because you can't fathom it.

It's not a problem with the science. It's a problem with the limits of your ability to understand and imagine.
You don't know how gravity works and you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
So don't try and tell me I don't understand.
It's you that doesn't understand, except to go along with gobbledygook.

Way to miss the point again, where did I say I don't understand gravity?  That's your issue.

You are unable to wrap your mind around the theory, and you mistake your failure for the theory being gobbledygook.

Hint: If the entire world is confusing and impossible to make any sense of, maybe... it's not the world that is confused.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #298 on: March 05, 2021, 04:01:40 AM »
you also don't know why you can see a lighthouse from distance by thinking you're on an oblate spheroid.
We know why, Earth obstructs the view. But that is only after a significant distance and depends on height.
You want to pretend Earth being round means you can't see it at all, yet you cannot justify that at all.

Sooo, are you saying it has nothing to do with atmospheric mass build over distance?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 27372
Re: Lighthouse dipping lights
« Reply #299 on: March 05, 2021, 04:05:36 AM »
Way to miss the point again, where did I say I don't understand gravity?  That's your issue.

It's your issue because you don't understand it and can't even use it to back yourself up in any realistic fashion.


Quote from: JJA

You are unable to wrap your mind around the theory, and you mistake your failure for the theory being gobbledygook.
I agree I can't wrap my mind around it. There's a good reason for that. A similar reason why I can't wrap my head around ghosts being dead people or gods being superpowered dead people.

And, nobody has ever explain what it is. Including you.


Quote from: JJA

Hint: If the entire world is confusing and impossible to make any sense of, maybe... it's not the world that is confused.
That doesn't make any sense.